Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help with improving the combat system.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Help with improving the combat system.

    Hi all.

    We all know that the WoD combat system could use some work. It's clunky, slow and combat with more than 3 participants can take hours (especially if one or more characters have some multi-action boost (Celerity, Rage, etc).

    I know that proper preparation and clear actions can remove alot of the time but it still takes forever.

    The current setup is the following. An offensive action consists of an attack (Unarmed, Melee, Ranged or Thrown attack) and a damage roll (Str+Weapon Dmg+Power) and the defensive action consists of a evade roll (Dodge, Block or Parry) and a Soak roll (Stamina+Power).

    What i want to do is design a system that boils down to two rolls per encounter. One for the aggressor and one for the defender. While CofDs system of one roll is nice it takes away the feeling of accomplishment from the defending part. I also want to create a static enviroment with as few variables as possible. While i have to problem with maths on dicepools i think it either needs to stay a static dicepool with variable difficulties or a static difficulty with a varying dicepool.

    My original thought was to just lump it all together in one big dicepool. So combine Attack and Damage pools for offensive action and combine Evade and Soak for defence. However this leaves us with way to big a dicepool and if you enter powers, such as Potence it can get seriously ridiculous.

    My other thought, since most attack rolls are done again diff 6, was to use Attack pool divided by 2 and then add the damage pool on top of that and roll once (an argument could be done to do it the other way around) but this doesn't feel right either.

    Another thing that's been bothering me is the fact that offence is favored and that people wade into battle without any real concern for their character (a damaged character can always be healed later). If someone came at me with an axe i would sure do my best to evade that damage. Not just take the damage so that i could sink my knife into the attacker.
    To remedy this i suggest making the default action an evasive one and that if you want to soak and attack you need to spend a willpower to do so.

    Another thing is the ridiculous notion that it takes 3 seconds to land a punch, either that or the character throws a punch and then waits around for a second or two and wait patiently for the other guys to hit back before throwing another punch.
    To fix that i say that multiple actions should be the standard, two actions per turn, one defensive and one offensive. It should be possible to either trade the defensive action for bonus dice on the attack (not a separate attack, that would slow down shit for reals. This would also cost the aforementioned willpower point) or take a fully defensive action, granting bonus dice to the defensive action against one or more opponents.

    So what are your thoughts on this? How would you redesign the combat system?





    English is not my native language, so i apologize for errors in grammar or spelling.

  • #2
    I do not like 4 rolls on one attack at all.
    I think about rolling dodge / parry only once per turn; on raw damage / soak I have no satisfying solution.

    Besides: If I ran a Storteller Series game again I will probably go with "narrative combat" in which combat is "a small story in a bigger story".

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Colognian View Post
      I do not like 4 rolls on one attack at all.
      I think about rolling dodge / parry only once per turn; on raw damage / soak I have no satisfying solution.

      Besides: If I ran a Storteller Series game again I will probably go with "narrative combat" in which combat is "a small story in a bigger story".
      Not sure what you mean by 4 rolls on one attack. Do you mean the RAW combat system? Because thats what im trying to change.





      English is not my native language, so i apologize for errors in grammar or spelling.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes exactly what you want to change I dislike too.
        Last edited by Colognian; 04-19-2017, 04:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ah, fair enough then .
          what are your thoughts on the systems changes i suggested?





          English is not my native language, so i apologize for errors in grammar or spelling.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well you have to find a system that is good for you first.

            Putting attack skill and damage together is not my taste as I like to discriminate between precision and power.
            Two actions one offensive one defensive is what I think of too.
            Three second combat rounds is ok for me as you roll once and that roll represents the trading of multiple striktes.
            Last edited by Colognian; 04-19-2017, 05:18 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              As written above I had rather a narrative combat. I made considerations on this; currently I am working on three subjects: Initiative, multiple actions and as said, the calculation of damage and soak.

              Comment


              • #8
                It is difficult when you have defense and resistance as active pools. My suggestion would be to make defense and resistance a negative die pool modifier for the attacker. If the attacker would be reduced to '0' or less attack or damage, they get one die to try to hit or damage, unless the defense or soak is twice the unmodified attack or damage pool, in which they automatically fail. Changes to difficulty becomes changes in dice pool.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you want to simplify the amount of rolls required in combat, it's somewhat easy to do so:

                  initiative -> as RAW
                  Attack/dodge -> as RAW
                  Damage roll -> Don't roll. Use weapon value ( and/or strength and extra attack successes ) as a fixed value, just half the total.
                  Soak -> Don't roll. Use armor value ( and/or stamina) as a fixed value, just half the total.

                  There you go. Damage and soak have become, more or less(!), the statistic averages and you skip those rolls in exchange for a more pre-determined damage distribution, with the wildcard being the extra successes rolled on the still RAW hit roll. Which makes sense.
                  You can change the overall weighting of damage vs soak a little if you decide that damage gets rounded up, but soak gets rounded down, or vice versa, or both down/up.
                  This only counts for a damage/soak diff of 6 of course.
                  Less rolls, but also less moments of 'hell yeah!' damage and soak achievments.


                  Another thing is the ridiculous notion that it takes 3 seconds to land a punch, either that or the character throws a punch and then waits around for a second or two and wait patiently for the other guys to hit back before throwing another punch.
                  I don't remember off-hand how V20 and W20 treat it (I know V20: DA forbids it explicitely), but M20 does not forbid anyone from doing multiple attacks in a round, simply using the normal multiple action rules. I kind of like that idea, since it makes a reasonable difference between trying a precise, hard punch, or trying to pummel a foe with multiple, but lighter punches. Especially with the damage/soak roll simplification above, it becomes a viable tactic.
                  Last edited by Ambrosia; 04-19-2017, 05:47 PM.


                  >> cWoD Dice Probability Chart | | >> cWoD Dice Statistics Calculator | | >> cWoD Alternative Armor System
                  >> cWoD Alternative Damage Roll System | | >> My explanation of cWoD Damage Levels | | >> 'Intersting' Strength Attribute Stuff

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes, you told the problems that result.
                    Also: What happens if averaged damage is less than soak?
                    You could wait for more successes on attack vs dodge of course...
                    I kind of have this in Exalted but there are more options for contenders.
                    Aggravated damage is a problem also.
                    Last edited by Colognian; 04-19-2017, 05:52 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Colognian View Post
                      Also: What happens if averaged damage is less than soak?
                      Then, yes, you have to roll more extra attack successes on it.
                      Or stop trying to knife-fight the guy in heavy armor

                      Aggravated damage is a problem also.
                      Not more than it is already under the normal system for beings that can't soak it, really.


                      >> cWoD Dice Probability Chart | | >> cWoD Dice Statistics Calculator | | >> cWoD Alternative Armor System
                      >> cWoD Alternative Damage Roll System | | >> My explanation of cWoD Damage Levels | | >> 'Intersting' Strength Attribute Stuff

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Aya Tari View Post
                        It is difficult when you have defense and resistance as active pools. My suggestion would be to make defense and resistance a negative die pool modifier for the attacker. If the attacker would be reduced to '0' or less attack or damage, they get one die to try to hit or damage, unless the defense or soak is twice the unmodified attack or damage pool, in which they automatically fail. Changes to difficulty becomes changes in dice pool.
                        While i agree that this makes things alot easier and quicker (not to mention the fact that defense becomes overall better since all of it removes successes from the attacker rather than statisticly half) it removes the sense of participation and envolvement from the defending character. They basicly dont get to participate. It's the same thing imo as when a PC gets affected by, for example, Dominate. I've heard players multiple times say something like "do i get to resist?" And the answer would be "you are, just not actively".





                        English is not my native language, so i apologize for errors in grammar or spelling.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well, the question concerned simplifying combat. I personally do not find all of the dice rolling annoying, it is every other aspect of combat that annoys me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ambrosia View Post
                            If you want to simplify the amount of rolls required in combat, it's somewhat easy to do so:

                            initiative -> as RAW
                            Attack/dodge -> as RAW
                            Damage roll -> Don't roll. Use weapon value ( and/or strength and extra attack successes ) as a fixed value, just half the total.
                            Soak -> Don't roll. Use armor value ( and/or stamina) as a fixed value, just half the total.
                            Pretty much what I do. So a light pistol would take successes in health levels, a heavy pistol would do successes +1 in health levels, and so on. Melee and unarmed attacks' fixed value would be mediated by Strength--but likewise added to successes.

                            I find the problem of soak a little more vexing, because if you just divide in half it makes odd Stamina levels less valuable--or even levels if you are rounding up. My solution is a bit awkward, but seems to work: round up the first turn, and alternate.

                            Also, I only do Initiative every 2-3 turns.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Double post.
                              Last edited by adambeyoncelowe; 04-20-2017, 05:36 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X